Skip to content

Conversation

@drortirosh
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@eip-review-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eip-review-bot commented Apr 16, 2025

File ERCS/erc-4337.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @g11tech, @SamWilsn, @xinbenlv

@eip-review-bot eip-review-bot changed the title Update erc-4337.md: change status to Review Update ERC-4337: Move to Review Apr 16, 2025
@eip-review-bot eip-review-bot changed the title Update ERC-4337: Move to Review CI: Move to Review Apr 18, 2025
@eip-review-bot eip-review-bot changed the title CI: Move to Review Update ERC-4337: Move to Review Apr 19, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@SamWilsn SamWilsn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • Line 20: You'll need to remove the link in backticks.
  • Line 20: The reference to EIP-2938 needs to be resolved before moving into review, where "resolved" means either removing the reference or getting EIP-2938 withdrawn.
  • Line 48: I'd recommend against putting a requirement ("MUST") in your definitions section. They are easy to miss.
  • Line 54: Same.
  • Line 55: EIP-7732 is still a Draft. It'll have to advance to Review before 4337 does (or you can remove the reference).
  • Line 56: Same comment about 7796 (either move it to review or remove the reference)
  • I'm going to stop mentioning these, but any link to a Draft/Stagnant proposal needs to either: be removed, or the referenced proposal needs to be moved to Review/Withdrawn.
  • Lines 60-61: Should "UserOperation" be in backticks (`)?
  • Line 64: Same
  • Line 72: Is 0x7702 left-padded or right-padded to 20 bytes?
  • Line 237: Less of an editorial comment and more technical, but why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST?
  • Line 583: You'll need to remove this link. You can put you reference implementation in your assets directory provided it is under a permissive license.

Co-authored-by: Sam Wilson <[email protected]>
@SamWilsn
Copy link
Contributor

I assume you're still interested in this PR?

@forshtat
Copy link
Contributor

I assume you're still interested in this PR?

@SamWilsn Sorry for a late reply. Yes, we would like to move forward with finalizing the ERC, and I believe that I have addressed all the issues you have mentioned in your last comment in this PR:
#1157

@xinbenlv
Copy link
Collaborator

xinbenlv commented Oct 14, 2025

The status change has been merged on #1157

Can we update the branch to sync with main branch or close this PR if there are no other major content updates?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants